The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1887-12-06
In the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian
Islands--In Banco. October Term,
1887.
IN THE MATTER OF PAUL NEU-
MANN, A PRACTITIONER OF THE
SUPREME COURT.

MANN, A PRACTITIONER OF THE
SUPREME COURT.
BEFORE JUDD, c. J., M'cULLY, PRESTON ANT
BIcKERToN J., J.
Mr.. Neumann was ordered to an
swer complaint filed bye A1ichiels
client.
The circumstances which led to
the complaint being filed are as fol-
lows:
On the S1st day of July, 1886, Mr..
Aichiels was arrested on charge
of having opium unlawfully i'll his
possession. His storeman or clerk
had been previously arrested on a
similar charge.
The case was continued for hear
ing until Monday, the ID August,
and Michiels was released on bail,
his surety being Mr.. H. Davis.
Mr.. Neumann was retained by
AIichiels and Mr.. Whiting was re-
tanned on behalf of his clerk, Mr..
Bowler, at the request of Michiels
becoming surety for the clerk.
On the ID August, the cases We're
further continued until the 4th, and
during the afternoon of the ID, Mr..
Neumann prepared an absolute bill
of sale from NTichiels to Whiting of
all his stock in trade, etc., for the
expressed consideration of one dol
lar.
Early in the morning of the 4th
August, a fire, which may be taken
to have been the actof anincendiary,
occurred at Michiels' store whereby
the whole stock in trade therein was
so much damaged as to cause, prac-
tlcally, total loss.
The property was insured and the
insurance companies having declined
to pay, AIichiels brought actions
against them, Messrs. Neumann
Whiting and Creighton acting as his
attorneys.
One of such actions against the
Hartford Insurance Company came
on for trial before Mr.. Justice Me-
Gully at the last April term, at which
trial counsel for the defendant called
for the aforesaid bill of sale, which
counsel for AIichiels produced under
notice.
The Court held that the bill of
sale changed the property in the
goods, and under a condition con-
tanned in the policy avoided it, and
on motion of counsel for the defend
ant the plaintiff was non-suited,
which non-suit was sustained by the
full Court at the last July term.
Mr.. NIichiels' complaint resolves
into the following charges.
!. That Mr.. Neumann induced
AIichielS to sign a document lie. the
bill of sale) not prepared at his clients
instance, without first explaining to
his client the nature of such docu-
ment, or without giving him an OPP
portunfty to read the same.
,. That Mr.. Neumann was guilty
of wilful neglect in allowing Michiels
to institute proceedings without pre-
viously informing him of the nature
of the document he had signed and
which he (Neumann) well knew at
the time of instituting such suit was
a complete answer and defence.
3. That Mr.. Neumann betrayed
the confidence of his client NIichiels,
by wilfully and maliciously disclos-
ing to the defendants or to their
or agent the existence of the
said bill of sale.
In support of the first ground Of
complaint, Mr.. NIichiels stated that
"Neumann came to my store, and
presented the foot of a document
which he held in his hand before
me, asked me to sign it. 1 asked
him what it was. He said sign it,
Yes, l replied, but 1 should like to
know what 1 am signing. He an
swered shave you no confidence in
me? 1t is a bond for 81, $50, for
Aessrs. Bowler and Davis As Mr..
Neumann seemed annoyed at my
curiosity about the contents
Of the document, and as l did not |
want to do anything to gain the i'll |
will of my attorney during trial in |
which he was retained by me, l |
signed the paper which Mr.. Neu- /
mann put in his pocket, leaving the
store Immediately thereafter The
nature of the document L did not
know, nor did 1 see. it again until
he trial. when it turned up through
he instrumentality of the defendant
,ompany's counsel. From what Mr..
Neumann said assumed at the time
had merely signed simple bond
% secure Bowler and Davis against
oss through their becoming bail for
me-"
Mr.. Michiels was cross-examined